I always took it to be a form of quarantine/ delousing/ whatever. Similar to the way that spoils could only enter the camp after being cleansed with either fire or water
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Q
- Thread starter ginger2
- Start date
I always took it to be a form of quarantine/ delousing/ whatever. Similar to the way that spoils could only enter the camp after being cleansed with either fire or water
I think more of a boot camp experience where everything about the previous life is stripped away so that the new life is all that they have going forward.
Scripture does not say exactly about the mourning period for a widow but in Dueteronomy 34:8, we are told, “The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab for thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over.” The normal mourning period for a person in Jewish culture was seven days. Gensis 50:10 notes this as the initial mourning period for Jacob: “When they reached the threshing floor of Atad, near the Jordan, they lamented loudly and bitterly; and there Joseph observed a seven-day period of mourning for his father.” For a great or well-known person, a longer mourning period may have been common. When Aaron died, mourning lasted for 30 days (Numbers 20:29).
Traditionally, a person is buried the same day as his or her death, followed by seven days of mourning. A special meal of condolence is provided after the burial. Mourners remained in the house of mourning with friends and family throughout the week. In some cases, mourners wait 30 days before cutting their hair, so I guess it would depend on how much she loved her husband 7 to 30 days.
That's how I connected the two.
So back to my question, was it a one time shave or a continual Q-ball?
This all goes back to Vv76’s statement:
“As far as wearing a head covering, I’d say its difficult if not impossible to wear a head covering without having a head.
Perhaps that is why the hair cutting was so significant when a woman lost her husband.”
I personally believe that the long hair was a kind of public testimony to how long she had been under cover. A woman who had moved from her fathers covering directly to her husbands covering would end up with a mane that would indubitably be a glory to her and her cover. A woman shorn and kicked out for rebellion or anything else would have been constantly reminded of her shame due to her lack of covering and it would have been a warning to those who came in contact with her that this woman has been rejected and shamed by one who covered her. Not much of a way to hide it either unless you had some kind of fake covering to hide your shame.
This is can be very difficult to answer in only a short reply. First, pray for revelation. In 1Corinth 11:3 It teaches that the head of every man is Christ. So, is He the head of the drunk, unbeliever, atheist? See? If Christ isn’t his head, then he’s dead. Who is Paul talking to here? His audience? Second, her head is a believing man, not just any man that the believing woman was “legally” married to at some time of ignorance/unbelief. . Thirdly, in Romans 7:2 it states: “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.” What we tend to miss here is the Word “dead” here is “apothnesko,” which means “to die off (literally OR figuratively).” Again, who is Paul’s audience? Believers or unbelievers? One needs to read all of chapter 7 to “get It.” It explains freedom. So, one must determine is the man a believer or not, and I’m not talking about a person filling a seat. Sittin in a chicken house will never make one a chicken. Lastly and remember, I’m being very brief; read John 4. Read the interaction between Jesus and the woman at the well. One needs to read all the chapter of course. There’s so much here. Read it slow and about 30 times. LOL! Read especially verses 16-18. It states:
“[16] Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. [17] The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: [18] For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.” Do you see, if she had a “living husband” Jesus could only talk to her husband and then the husband would teach her. Just like Paul taught her silence and ask her husband at home. Then she answered, “I have no husband” he told her she told the truth, but “seemed” to contradict Himself when He admitted she told the truth and then Jesus said she had five husbands and the one she’s with now is not her husband. Seems confusing, but it isn’t once it’s revealed. This also fits with Paul’s understanding of a female believer is not bound to the unbelieving husband(brevity). What is critical is Paul’s, Jesus’, and James’ audience. Is the man a Son? Again one must put on their “spiritual thinking” caps here to “get It.” In regards to her head/covering. It is the Christ, which is over her husband, which is a Son.
“[16] Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. [17] The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: [18] For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.” Do you see, if she had a “living husband” Jesus could only talk to her husband and then the husband would teach her. Just like Paul taught her silence and ask her husband at home. Then she answered, “I have no husband” he told her she told the truth, but “seemed” to contradict Himself when He admitted she told the truth and then Jesus said she had five husbands and the one she’s with now is not her husband. Seems confusing, but it isn’t once it’s revealed. This also fits with Paul’s understanding of a female believer is not bound to the unbelieving husband(brevity). What is critical is Paul’s, Jesus’, and James’ audience. Is the man a Son? Again one must put on their “spiritual thinking” caps here to “get It.” In regards to her head/covering. It is the Christ, which is over her husband, which is a Son.
It is critical why he divorced her. Adultery? Fornication? Or just didn’t want her? See Dr. Luck, Sr’s book.
To clarify:
Fornication is a catch-all word for any form of forbidden sex.
Adultery means sleeping with another man's wife, it's just one type of fornication.
Fornication is a catch-all word for any form of forbidden sex.
Adultery means sleeping with another man's wife, it's just one type of fornication.
Yes. Even if you do not have a man in authority over you, it still denotes your assent to your place in the hierarchy of creation. The angels will notice. When you pray to God with your head uncovered you are refusing to humble yourself but rather assert man's glory over God's glory.
Now if you feel a hypocrite in doing that while also not being under proper authority. It is better to fix that problem than to compound it by not covering. How to fix that issue is rather more complicated.
Now my underlying assumption here is that women should cover their head in prayer and that it is a physical covering. Most Christians today don't practice that; but it was the practice for 1900 years until the feminist rebellion against God took hold in the church.
Nice!
Zackly. An old old old Strong’s I have says adultery is “only sex with another man’s wife.”
Last edited:
Which edition, or year is that one?
i see there is an asumption this is about me
... i did say theoretically ... first word ...
you know, the asians practice saving face n all that ... its nice sometimes ...
i appreciate everyones input tho seriously!
as for me, some time ago i started flipping the bed sheet over my head to pray ... "felt" right? idunno. thats what i do.
I didn't read carefully and made that assumption. My apologies.
But that doesn't change anything I stated.
I will also say, I really appreciate the question. I've not heard that concern on the passage before. The first half of 1 Cor 11 is a very deep passage theologically and practically with broad applications on many theological questions.
Lost to discuss and ponder about. But almost zero teachers plumb its depths because they've effectively written it out of the cannon on account of its avowedly anti-feminist teaching.
But that doesn't change anything I stated.
I will also say, I really appreciate the question. I've not heard that concern on the passage before. The first half of 1 Cor 11 is a very deep passage theologically and practically with broad applications on many theological questions.
Lost to discuss and ponder about. But almost zero teachers plumb its depths because they've effectively written it out of the cannon on account of its avowedly anti-feminist teaching.